Here is a great question for O'Reilly, how come you never has anyone on the Factor like the former Reagan Solicitor General and current Harvard Law Professor Charles Fried, to talk about the Obama health care bill. Because he is an expert on law, and he says it is constitutional.

Instead of having experts in law like Professor Fried, who is a Republican btw, on the Factor to discuss the bill, O'Reilly has Rove, Ingraham, Morris, Miller, Beck, etc. on to discuss it.

Professor Fried spoke to a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday on The Constitutionality of the Obama health care bill, and btw he was Ronald Reagan's Solicitor General. Fried, tore into the reasoning of Judge Vinson's decision striking down the Affordable Care Act, saying the issue should be a no brainer:

FRIED: I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional. My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution, and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress' Commerce power, "what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That is-to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed."

To my mind, that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the mandate.

The mandate is a rule-more accurately, "part of a system of rules by which commerce is to be governed," to quote Chief Justice Marshall.

And if that weren't enough for you-though it is enough for me-you go back to Marshall in 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, where he said "the powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution. The government which has the right to do an act"-surely, to regulate health insurance-"and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means."

And that is the Necessary and Proper Clause.

I think that one thing about Judge Vinson's opinion, where he said that if we strike down the mandate everything else goes, shows as well as anything could that the mandate is necessary to the accomplishment of the regulation of health insurance.

If the right-wing argument against the mandate is accepted, Fried argued "not only is ObamaCare unconstitutional, but then so is RomneyCare in Massachusetts."

Notice that O'Reilly does not claim the RomneyCare health insurance bill is unconstitutional, because Romney is a Republican.

Fried also explained that he is not a partisan for the Affordable Care Act, and that he has some doubts about whether it is good policy. Fried's position on the law's requirement that all people carry insurance reflects exactly how the Constitution is supposed to operate.

Elected officials are supposed to make policy decisions, not judges who have to ignore entire constitutional provisions in order to impose their policy preferences on the law.

Nothing like this is ever reported by O'Reilly, he just ignores it all, while he spins out his opinion on the issue, with all his right-wing guests/friends who agree with him. That's not journalism, it's spin.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page:www.oreilly-sucks.com